SHRI HARESHBHAI J. FALDU,JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 वष"

section 271(1)(c) as held the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processers reported in 306 ITR 227 are civil proceeding therefore establishment of willful attempt/mens-rea is not necessary to levy penalty. Further, the income was found during the search, had the search not been carried out, the income could have been concealed. Thus

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

271(1)(c) of the Act, despite the final tax liability for A. Y. 2014-15, having been determined and levied exclusively under the deemed provisions of Section 115JC (AMT) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. authorities failed to appreciate that the case is covered by the reasonable cause u/s 273B; hence no penalty is leviable. 5. The appellant

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

70,856/-. From the above discussion, it is clear that regarding undisclosed income of Rs.62,02,214/-, the appellant has fulfilled the conditions I.T.A Nos. 535 & 567/Rjt/14 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT mentioned in section 271AAA. This amount was disclosed in 132(4) statement, shown as income in the return and due taxes were

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

70,856/-. From the above discussion, it is clear that regarding undisclosed income of Rs.62,02,214/-, the appellant has fulfilled the conditions I.T.A Nos. 535 & 567/Rjt/14 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 5 Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT mentioned in section 271AAA. This amount was disclosed in 132(4) statement, shown as income in the return and due taxes were

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs. 70,551 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has mentioned about the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT and not explained the expenditure claimed u/s

KANTILAL BABULAL SOLANKI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, JUNAGADH

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs. 70,551 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has mentioned about the pendency of the appeal before the ITAT and not explained the expenditure claimed u/s

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRL-1,, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134 & 135/Rjt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2007-08 & 2008-09) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Kherajmal Lekhrajbjai 5Th 1(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Thavrani, 4- Parsana Nagar, Shri Vs. Floor, Room No. 517, Race Vaheguru Grupa, Near Refugee Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 Colony, Rajkot-360 001 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जी आइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adrpt 5807 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

u/s 68 of the IT Act is correct. It is proposition of law that the scope of the provision of section 68 of the IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue, in ITA No

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE ITO WARD-1 (2) (1),, RAJKOT vs. SHRI KHRAJMAL LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT vs. BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

SHRI BHARATKUMAR IASHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2),, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,,RAJKOT vs. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN. CIR.-1,, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 1(2)(4),, RAJKOT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

SHRI BHARATKUMAR ISHWARBHAI BHATIYA,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-2,, JUNAGADH vs. SHRI DAMJIBHAI LEKHRAJBHAI THAVRANI,, JUNAGADH

section 153A r.w.s 144 r.ws. 147/143(3) and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Since the issues involved in the case of all the appeals are common and identical; therefore, the appeals of the three assessees have been clubbed and heard together, and a consolidated order is being